Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 19	May 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎keep. After 3 weeks no one has objected to this article. NYC Guru (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fondazione Child

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a good cause but not a notable organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE

I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid justifications. Jack4576 please stop making such votes, if you object to an AFD please provide sources here by yourself instead of doubting if others conducted online searches. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I do have concerns about some of the writing about the organization, but the WHO acknowledged the organization's sponsorship of a major conference ("We are deeply grateful to Foundation CHILD (Fondazione per lo Studio e la Ricerca sull’Infanza e l’Adolescenza), from Italy, that provided partial financial support to the technical meeting on “Caring for Children and Adolescents With Mental Disorders: Setting WHO Directions”...."). Fixing minor mistakes and editing down verbiage is not the purpose of AfD. They have done enough, on a global basis, to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While not familiar with Italian sources, this is trivial coverage [1], about typical of them, only being briefly mentioned in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World's End (TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any evidence of notability, which it has been tagged for since 2018, with zero reviews found. Sending it here to see if anyone else can find something that would justify keeping this article, and if not, then it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~See below: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Wikipedians from the UK or fans of the show, and (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ...

... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made reasonable WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found

Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what WP:IAR is for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right Necrothesp. Keep on the basis of WP:IAR Jack4576 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source in article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. Keep vote admits that guidelines call for deletion, even after spam Keep vote. // Timothy :: talk 00:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have found no SIGCOV and see no evidence that this meets the GNG. (Also, IMHO, a call to keep an article based on IAR is a concession that there aren't any legitimate grounds upon which to keep.) Ravenswing 01:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except IAR which is its own legitimate ground. Jack4576 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references which I put on the article’s talk page —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article requires SIGCOV to determine notability. These sources (the ones you added to the talk page) do not demonstrate SIGCOV. The 1st contains several interview quotes and is extremely WP:ROUTINE; besides that, it hardly focuses on the series itself (instead listing multiple quotes) and is quite short. The 2nd source closely resembles this description, consisting almost entirely of quotes, besides the fact that it is very short and lacks in-depth description of the series. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Considered together, those two sources identified by A. B. amount to significant coverage existing for this subject. The Chronicle live article in particular discusses the subject with a reasonable amount of depth; describing the show's setting, film location, release date, plot, cast, and production. SIGCOV is arguably met here.

A subjective assessment, in any event. Jack4576 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is only determined individually. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, (you keep repeating this, yet have never provided any basis for that assertion)

and in any event, the ChronocleLive article alone would be enough. Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE isn't relevant as that's about notability of routine events, but the sources identified were from before the series appeared on television and consist mostly of quotes and I don't think there's enough there for an article, or another good reason to keep it as most of the content lacks sources and is possibly original research or (more likely) copied from somewhere without attribution. Peter James (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above and Peter James' analysis. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Texas A&M University. No policy-based argument has been provided for a standalone page; subunits of a larger notable topic are logically covered under that larger article, unless it can be shown that enough independently sourced content exists that a spinoff is necessary. That has not been shown here. I don't understand the argument for a draft, as the history will remain accessible, and notability is unlikely to change in the immediate future. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M University College of Liberal Arts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few individual university departments are notable, and this one is not exception--it's like almost all the other ones, and at best deserves a redirect. There is no notability as proven by reliable secondary sourcing, and no reason why there should be any; please note that all the "sourcing" is actually a collection of primary links to the Texas A&M website, and the article itself, with its list of majors and programs, just a kind of directory. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Rosguill, who earlier tagged this for notability; User:Miszatomic, who merged this a while ago; and Randykitty, who's dealt with this user before. Also pinging User:ElKevbo, who PRODded this before. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas A&M unless independent sourcing demonstrating that the college meets GNG independently of the rest of Texas A&M can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominally have no issue with redirecting and merging WP:DUE content to another, more relevant Texas A&M-related page as suggested by Aquabluetesla below, but I would note that the current state of sourcing at Texas A&M University College of Science is no better than this article, and thus may just be kicking the can down the road (despite citing one independent source, said source does not include significant coverage of the College of Science in particular but rather is a college ranking page listing Texas A&M as a whole). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosguill, good point: that article is no better, and that article should simply redirect to the main Texas A&M article. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is outdated as to the present state of the article. This discussion should be Speedily Kept as per WP:SK guidelines under reason 1(b), (the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging)) and 3. (The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.) The nominator of the article has failed to revise their unintelligible or, at the very least, convoluted reason for the initial nomination. Alternatively, Keep or Merge with Texas A&M University College of Science because the new college is the College of Arts and Sciences, and they were originally founded in 1924 as the School of Arts and Sciences and split in 1965.

Please explain what "Very few individual university departments are notable, and this one is not exception--it's like almost all the other ones, and at best deserves a redirect" means. As it’s written, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "departments" as that words definition with context to universities is the majors or subjects such as economics, philosophy, history, etc. It’s unclear as to what you mean by "…this one is not exception". What is "it" and what are the "other ones" that you are referring to by "it's almost like all the other ones"? The other colleges of Texas A&M? The departments in the other colleges of the university? Please specify.

What do you mean by "…no reason there should be any [secondary sources]"? Why?

This page should absolutely not be deleted. The college is very notable, Phil Gramm, the U.S. Senator, taught economics at the college and until its demise, the college was one of the largest at A&M, which is in the top three of the largest universities of the United States. The college is approaching its 100th anniversary of its founding and was much larger than many of the colleges of A&M that also have pages and a less amount of sources currently. It never should have been deleted in the first place. How is it different from the other colleges/schools listed in the infobox? I will be adding more sources soon, and have found several secondary sources relating to the subject. I will be making a history section. I made a notable faculty section and might add a notable alumni section soon. I would like those arguing for it to explain the argument against merging with the College of Science and why it should be a redirect to Texas A&M University.

Pinging some editors of A&M articles for their input, Buffs, Larry Hockett, Nicolás Macri, Largoplazo, John B123, Jessicapierce, Steve Quinn, Anas1712, Purplebackpack89, and Oldag07. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquabluetesla: Are there independent sources that indicate that this subject is notable? ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They will be added.Aquabluetesla (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm waiting for because I'm not readily finding any and without them I'm going to support restoration of the redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this article to not be deleted as a result of this discussion, I strongly recommend that you add those references now. (And the same goes for the articles about the other colleges of this university - they'll probably be nominated for deletion on the same grounds, too, if they also lack independent sources that demonstrate notability). ElKevbo (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence just above here aptly demonstrates the problem with this user: really, Aquabluetesla, you don't know which subject we're discussing here? In any case, given the absence of independent sources treating the subject in-depth: delete or redirect to Texas A&M University. I also recommend that somebody has a closer look at President of Texas A&M University. --Randykitty (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my dear friend, I’m honoured to receive the grandiose compliment you’ve bestowed upon my additions by recommending others view the wonderful article on this present website regarding the President of Texas A&M University. I cannot quantify the joy that I feel knowing that you think the article is without flaw and are unable to name any improvements or any criticisms that must not be coming to mind. That must reflect amazingly on the superb quality of the informative content I've contributed to the page. Although, (for the record), I will not confirm or deny that I may or may not have made some significant contributions to it. I am eternally grateful for your gratitude, sincerity, and kind words. Thank you, very much so. /sAquabluetesla (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indicating that this is sarcasm doesn't make it any more acceptable. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reword your opening argument. It is unacceptable and does not make the slightest amount of sense. Aquabluetesla (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable and quite clear. The core is "There is no notability as proven by reliable secondary sourcing", supplemented by the point about all the sources that you supplied being from Texas A&M itself, none of them independent of the article's subject. If the subject fails the general notability guidelines, then it probably doesn't qualify for an article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Phil Gramm has dogs and boards them at a kennel when he travels, does that make the kennel notable? If he plays chess and belongs to a chess club, does that make the chess club notable? No. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fascinated by this comment. Many reasons other than the fact that Phil Gramm taught in the college make it notable. Aquabluetesla (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who cited it as a reason. I pointed out that it isn't one. Do you think there's a rule that unless someone dispenses with all your arguments, they shouldn't dispense with any? Anyway, unless it has received suitable independent coverage in reliable sources because of its size, its size is irrelevant here. University departments don't become notable just because they've lasted--I mean, every university English department or History department that's older than 100 isn't thereby notable. You can't just make up your own notability criteria. Largoplazo (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is about the school or College of Liberal Arts of Texas A&M University, not its individual departments. Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
School. Department. Division. College. Campus. The point is the same. And, for your own benefit, it's worth my mentioning that considering you've been informed what the primary consideration here is going to be—to spell it out, it's going to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources—you seem to be devoting more effort to snapping back and nitpicking about details when people point out to you what isn't going to lead to a Keep outcome than to gathering sources that would lead to a Keep outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now? Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now what? The citation to the website of the school's fundraising wing? Not exactly an independent source. And it isn't really about the school anyway, it's about a generous alumnus donation. It shows not at all that the school has attained significant notice outside of its own circle, which is more or less the goal at hand. Largoplazo (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are disregarding the source on the ProQuest website. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. You mean, the dissertation presented by a Texas A&M University student to the Office of Graduate Studies at Texas A&M University. Does that seem independent to you? Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added category "Liberal arts colleges at universities in the United States" when It was still a redirect. I can't say anything more. Anas1712 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas A&M. No indication the article meets WP:GNG. Phil Gramm teaching there does not make the college notable, see WP:NOTINHERETED. --John B123 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your argument against merging with the College of Science and why it should be a redirect to Texas A&M University. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M University College of Science has the same issues as this article (which has already been noted in this discussion). It is likely to be sent to AfD itself soon. In my opinion, a WP:MULTIAFD is needed for most of the articles in Category:Texas A&M University colleges and schools. --John B123 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Texas A&M University College of Science- The two schools are merging so this makes sense. As for the broader discussion, about the various sub schools within a university are noteable, that is something for WP:UNI to discuss not here. I see no evidence that "Very few individual university departments are notable". Doing a random search of universities, I see plenty of sub school pages. See Trinity College of Arts and Sciences or University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts or University of Arkansas College of Education & Health Professions. I am not sure why this page has been singled out. Oldag07 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07, this page wasn't "singled out". Those with experience in AfD have heard that a thousand times already. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for nomination is unintelligible. Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... --Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This information was cited as a counter to "Very few individual university departments are notable" demonstrating that it's pretty conclusively false...which the point that OldAg07 was making. You cited a reason he wasn't debating. Buffs (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- while good advice, that article is not official Wikipedia policy. see the top of that page. the presence of articles similar to it help establish its notability as least as it relates to Wikipedia. we aren't talking about one or two pages. we are talking hundreds. Oldag07 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are likely dozens or hundreds of articles about non-notable university colleges and departments that should also be deleted. This is a very neglected part of Wikipedia that has usually been edited only by alumni and employees of those organizations - this is a long overdue correction. ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it isn't an official policy. It's an elaboration on common sense. A consistent history of a particular kind of criminal charge under particular cirumstances being thrown out of court indicates to prosecutors that it's foolish to bring more of such cases to court. But the occurrence of many bank robberies where the robbers haven't been prosecuted because they haven't been caught yet doesn't mitigate the seriousness of charges when they are raised against a particular bank robber who's been caught. That latter point is the entirely valid one that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes. One points to essays like that in discussions like these because the reasoning is already fully spelled out in the essays, sparing everyone the repetition of it at length in every discussion where it's relevant. Policy isn't the only thing with value. Largoplazo (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that the point here wasn't "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" so this should (which was the primary point of the essay). He already said "merge it". Buffs (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make this a draft I respect the efforts of Aquabluetesla to improve this article, but at this point, it doesn't meet the threshold for a separate article. To a certain extent, it includes information that could be incorporated into the Texas A&M article (mostly already is). Information that is too detailed could be added as a note and I see nothing procedurally to discourage that. There's no reason to lose the information here. I would caution people about throwing around "not an independent source". Very little of the cited information is remotely controversial or something that a University would lie about. While we need to avoid boosterism, the date the College began or their enrollment is hardly controversial unless it is a wild claim. Such claims are submitted to the US Government under penalty of perjury...they have little reason to lie and are checked by the US Dept of Education. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Qi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All primary sources, with the exception of a few passing mentions in news sources confirming his victories at IOI. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, Computing, and United States of America. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - his claim to fame is winning a competition. We need a consensus as to whether this is in itself notable. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. If we want to think of the subject as a competitor, likely doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see the kind of coverage of winning the programming competition that would grant GNG notability. No sign of academic notability yet for a current graduate student, of course. It's possible that one could make some kind of combined case, say though the programming guide plus the competitions, but this would require more evidence of impact than is in the article (and I did not find more). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 03:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novomykolaivka, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG as worded. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a separate settlement and thus meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: see here - Novomykolayivka is listed 9th (code UA12140050090012313), demonstrating that this is a legally-recognised place and thus passes WP:GEOLAND.

Mupper-san (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 03:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalynivske, Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG as worded. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, though the outcome is to the detriment of this project Jack4576 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement and thus meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per GEOLAND and the sad fact that even minute Ukrainian locations are suddenly becoming relevant this year. I hope this place can stay out of the news. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the keep !votes are actually based in policy, since there is not any sourcing showing that this is a legally recognized place, nor is there any in-depth coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: see here for direct evidence that Kalynivske is a government-recognised town in Velykomykhailivka rural hromada (it's listed fifth in the composition of the hromada).

Mupper-san (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I don't see any support for the deletion of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Hernandez (singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Arizona. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Austin, Tyler (2016-08-16). "Exclusive: Idol Alum David Hernandez Comes Out After Releasing Powerful Love Anthem". Out. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Since the age of six, David Hernandez has found a second home on stage. ... Hernandez made his acting debut in a production of Annie before starring in other musicals. Just as he was finding happiness performing, however, Hernandez went to live with his father and his relationship with music entered rocky terrain. Growing up in a Mexican-American religious household, Hernandez confronted hyper-masculine ideals and beliefs that deterred him from the stage. Performance was looked at as feminine, a view continually contrasted with his younger brother's natural athleticism. Hernandez felt like he "needed to be more like him." Music was quickly put on hold."
2. Davis, Christopher (2021-06-14). "American Idol: What Happened to David Hernandez From Season 7. David Hernandez had a controversial run on American Idol season 7. Here's how David has reclaimed his career and identity after the show". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "David Hernandez had one of the most controversial runs on American Idol, but his journey after the singing competition series has been wholly inspiring. ... In 2016, David released a new song, "Beautiful", which was utilized as a vehicle for the star to come out as a gay man. Unlike when David's past, which was divulged during his run on American Idol, the singer-songwriter's public embrace of his LGBTQ identity was met with support and love. David has continued to release music including his album Kingdom: The Mixtape in 2018 and several singles since. David's newest song, "ily.", came out on May 21, 2021."
3. Matousek, Mark (2015-06-26). "PrideFest begins; David Hernandez among performers". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Eight years ago, it seemed David Hernandez would become another casualty of the major label machine. Open-mic nights led to a stint singing hooks for hip-hop songs and, eventually, a deal with Universal Music Group Distribution and Bungalo Records. But personal and creative differences would stall his first attempt at pop stardom. ... Hernandez has taken these lessons to heart in the years since. For his upcoming album, he took matters into his own hands, pouring his financial and emotional resources into its production."
4. Kurov, Mike (2019-11-22). "David Hernandez is on the right track". OutVoices. Vol. 31, no. 3. pp. 58–59. EBSCOhost 139817457. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "David Hernandez became a famous face and voice on season seven of American Idol, he began a successful solo career and continues to be a popular performer at Pride events and music venues across the world. We talked to him about what it was like growing up as a young gay man in Central Arizona, a life-changing car accident, working on his next projects that include an album in Spanglish, and collaborating with another Idol on an exciting new musical venture slated to be released next year. Hernandez was raised by a single mother in Arizona and knows the area well."
5. Holland, Scott (2022-03-15). "'AI' Alum David Hernandez Talks New EP, Nude Coffee Table Book". Hotspots Magazine. Vol. 37, no. 6. pp. 24–27. EBSCOhost 157596570. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "American Idol’s David Hernandez will reveal body and soul this spring with the release of his provocative new EP, “Don’t @ Me”, and its accompanying book of intimate photography, “#NSFW”. ... David is continuing his nude artistic journey on OnlyFans, releasing beautifully crafted, artistic nude photography to fans."
6. Holland, Scott (2020-05-20). "American Idol Alum David Hernandez Releases: "Sorry"". Hotspots Magazine. Vol. 35, no. 21. pp. 8–10. EBSCOhost 143467438. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "American Idol’s David Hernandez has recently released his new single and music video, “Sorry.” Produced by Alex and Deshawn Teamer (father and son team), and written with Michael Orland, the song is a metaphoric letter to those David has hurt in the past as well as those who have hurt him."
7. Elber, Lynn (2016-04-05). "Checking in: 5 former 'American Idol' contestants". El Paso Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "DAVID HERNANDEZ: The seventh-season semifinalist will tour this summer in North America and head to the Middle East to perform for U.S. troops. While describing himself as a committed balladeer, his new album (not yet titled), produced by Printz Board of the Black Eyed Peas, is pop-and-R&B influenced: "It's like Cee Lo Green meets myself." Board's production team shot the video for "Beautiful," the upcoming first single."
8. "'Idol' stars to perform in Oxford". The Anniston Star. 2009-11-06. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Singer/songwriter/actor David Hernandez, an Idol 2008 finalist, has been writing and recording music since he was 15. His most important invitation to perform so far came when he was asked to sing at the Inaugural Kick-Off Celebration ball for President Barack Obama. And, the Phoenix, Ariz., native has landed a principal role in the movie Synthetic Truth."
9. Christi, A.A. (2023-03-07). "American Idol's David Hernandez To Star In NAKED BOYS SINGING Off Broadway! In 2020 David starred in the hit Las Vegas production of Naked Boys Singing!". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "American Idol's David Hernandez is set to bare all again when he joins the off-Broadway return of the legendary Naked Boys Singing! beginning March 18th. David Hernandez made waves after being eliminated from season 7 of American Idol when his past as a stripper came to light. In 2020 David starred in the hit Las Vegas production of Naked Boys Singing!"
10. Crowely, Patrick (2018-02-13). "'American Idol' Alum David Hernandez Debuts Inspiring 'Shield (Coat of Armor)' Music Video: Watch". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Pop singer and American Idol alum David Hernandez has released the uplifting new single “Shield (Coat of Armor),” inspired by a USO tour in the Middle East. The singer told Billboard he was humbled to meet servicemen and women and wrote this track in a session with his producer Eddie Wohl and Daniel Braunstein."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Hernandez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to the appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place.

Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard's comment above, Hernandez has clearly garnered considerable news coverage since his time on Idol. --Jpcase (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have been eliminating the runners-up ("best of the rest") of American Idol, but primarily on the basis of WP:BLP1E versus WP:MUSIC. In other words, if they did not parlay their 15 minutes of fame from reality television, then their articles get deleted. However in this case, the subject went on many television, stage, and radio shows, garnering significant coverage, albeit from trashy TV shows, Billboard, Out magazine, and tabloids. His work off-broadway and in Las Vegas pushes him over the top. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ASM Chemical Industries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable private company. Created by a block-evading sockpuppet using the company website as their only source, several editors have tried cleaning it up over the years. Searches found no sources that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. An academic study of the industry mentions what they produce and how much (they're the smallest of five chlor-alkali manufacturing companies in Bangladesh).[2] Other than that, there is only primary source coverage, and it is not of the company itself.[3][4][5] Perhaps a sentence about the company could be added to a new "economy" section in Sreepur Upazila, Gazipur (where the factory is located), and this article could be redirected there. Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is actually a subsidiary of a larger company that also fails NCORP. References I find do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Wouldn't even be enough for a mention on the Sreepur Upazila page in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP, insufficient independent sources. Locu (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyae Phyo Thu

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G4 was declined, yet article still suffers from same issues as very recent AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has very poor sourcing, and was deleted and recreated. I would be in favour of salting if it was recreated a third time. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Quite honestly, I don't understand why the G4 keeps being denied; this was deleted following an AfD less than a month ago, and even if the article content may not be technically the same, the gist of it is, namely: there is no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I also think salting is required as certain authors clearly do not respect community decisions. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. The latter is necessary because the deletion tags have been removed repeatedly from this article so it is extremely likely that this article will simply be created again after this AfD closes. As to the notability of Pyae Phyo Thu, I found some coverage of a golfer of the same name but next to nothing about the footballer. Thanh Vien remains the best source that I can find, as it was a few weeks ago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - nothing has changed since the last AFD. Giant Snowman 12:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Fails WP:GNG and was previously deleted little under a month ago. I cannot find any sources that would be sufficient in establishing notability. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Memorial Parkway (Evansville)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a state highway and no news sources. Google News hits appear to be routine coverage. Rs chen 7754 15:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indiana. Rs chen 7754 15:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local road. Dough4872 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't notable for Wikipedia at all. Agreed with Dough4872. CastJared (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable continuation of an Interstate Highway that can be described in one sentence in Interstate 69 in Indiana, which I just added. V C 16:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of punk artists and styles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to List of punk rock bands, 0–K and List of punk rock bands, L–Z. The additional qualifier "styles" is completely unreferenced. Nothing here needs to be merged, so I'm proposing to delete instead. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In complete agreement with the nominator on redundancy and the unsupported use of "styles". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article redundant when better quality lists already exist. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor original research and useless outline. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep. No real need for this list when comprehensive lists already exist. Rupples (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a punk fan since 1979, record collector, zine publisher, and label dude, I have some expertise in the subject matter. The list is not bad, nor is the breakdown into subgenres in any substantial way "original" or incorrect. What may well be a compelling case against this particular list is its redundancy to List of punk rock bands, 0–K and List of punk rock bands, L–Z, mentioned by Binksternet above. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Kingdom of Yamma. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Janjero state of Gimirra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Leqa Qellam. WP:UNSOURCED for 19 years. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I check the history and it the creation of this article is not recorded so you wouldn't know whether it has been created by an expert Adler3 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, no sources, no dates (not even estimates) in much of the timeline, even the blue links don't point anywhere relevant. Redirect to Kingdom of Yamma. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kingdom of Yamma for potential sourcing. Srnec (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingdom of Yamma, to which Janjero is a redirect. We do not have enough content to justify a separate rulers article; and most of the rulers listed are redlinks. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom of Yamma. As there's no sources currently in the article and none have been put up in this AfD there's no verified content to merge. The blue Wikilink for Tureta points to an area of Nigeria and Duka to a village in Hungary. Rupples (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smith-Pettit Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see anything on the page or elsewhere that suggests the subject meets WP:NCORP. It seems like a fairly minor religious foundation that funds a small number of academic topics JMWt (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find sources to back up the article in Google News and the sources to the current article are insatisfactory. Adler3 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't have sources. Agreed with Spiderone. CastJared (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Uganda national football team. ✗plicit 14:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda national under-23 football team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft with zero in-depth independent sourcing. Nothing but routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is sad and unfortunate that WP's existing guidelines are unable to accommodate articles like this. Jack4576 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think NSPORT still (if it is the N guideline I am thinking of?) permits articles for international teams more or less just for existing, but since this team doesn't seem to have played any competitive international games, that would be a real stretch. Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federation of Uganda Football Associations, per WP:ATD. There seems to be nothing with which to build an encyclopedic article here, and we don't need stats dumps and squad sheets, which is all this is ever likely to become. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not that the team has never played any competitive international games, it's that they haven't managed to qualify for their continental championship (and that championship is, for some reason, the only event listed in this article). They have entered and played in the qualification rounds for the U-23 Africa Cup of Nations but not made it into the main tournament. See 2011 African U-23 Championship qualification, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uganda national football team. Under-23 teams can be notable, but the lack of coverage kills this for now. Giant Snowman 12:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG WP:UNSOURCED. More broadly speaking, almost all articles in Category:Turkvision Song Contest are either partially or wholly unsourced, or rely only on the official websites turkvision.info and turkvizyon.tv, or eurovoix.com. Eurovoix is probably an RS, also used for Eurovision articles, but the only serious RS which seems to report anything at all about Turkvision in the past 10 years. It seems very much like Turkvision has generally failed to imitate Eurovision, with many cancellations throughout the years and an uncertain future, and except for Eurovoix nobody really seems to have covered it. (Personally I had never heard about it until today). Many of these articles should have been inadmissible at the time of creation due to WP:GNG, and it is very much a question whether even the main article would still meet GNG after several years of opportunity to garner publicity. (There are some passages in Google Books, but I'm not sure if they would meet WP:SIGCOV). At any rate, let this list be a test case, we can look at the rest later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turkvision Song Contest. Doing so would not make the main article about the contest excessively long, taking into account the fact that one identical section now appears in both articles and would not need to be duplicated. As a second choice, delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Largely original research and I don't think including it on Turkvision Song Contest would be due weight. With regards to Eurovoix, I suspect there is a bit of circular referencing when it comes to Turkvision. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, mostly OR and SYNTH. AryKun (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see the utility in the alternative (the merge). There are no sources provided for these languages and there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about them. It is no surprise that countries sent songs that included their national languages. There are too few contest years for this article to be able focus on any sort of analysis about languages in the event. Grk1011 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's nothing to merge. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pole Motorsport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft by Mccapra, then moved back without improvement. Another contested draftification with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches did not turn up enough other than routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contested draftification with WP:SIGCOV not present and nothing coming up online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't locate any significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Here's hoping that sources found can be added to this article or it might be subject to a return to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primevil (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. No reliable sources besides a single mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite what seems to be a dearth of sources, the two sources currently included in the article are incredibly strong. Allmusic describes the band as a "touchstone" for its genre, and Classic Rock describes them as a "pioneer of heavy metal". A quick Google search also turned up this article from Decibel. There very well may be more sources out there, but the three sources we have available should be enough to display notability, considering just how influential these sources say the group apparently was in its time. --Jpcase (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage in Classic Rock, Decibel magazine and AllMusic bio and album review so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin A. Bates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, and because I have not found full support for WP:AUTHOR/editor notability. At the WP Library, I found three book reviews: Barrett, K. L. (2014). Kristin A. Bates and Richelle S. Swan: Juvenile delinquency in a diverse society: Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 2014, 452 pp. Critical Criminology, 22(4), 599-601. doi:10.1007/s10612-014-9236-5 ProQuest 1656052598; Luft, Rachel E. "The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a Modern Catastrophe – Edited by David L. Brunsma, David Overfelt, and J. Steven Picou, Through the Eye of Katrina: Social Justice in the United States – Edited by Kristin A. Bates and Richelle S. Swan and Racing the Storm: Racial Implications and Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina – Edited by Hillary Potter" Sociological Inquiry. May2008, Vol. 78 Issue 2, p258-263. 6p. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00238.x., Database: SocINDEX with Full Text; Vickerman, M. (2008). Through the Eye of Katrina: Social justice in the United States. Choice, 45(12), 2240. ProQuest 225731967. The article also includes: Spohn, Ryan. "Review of Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control (2nd edition) by Robert Agnew," Criminal Justice Review (March 2007) 32(1): 78-80, but this review is not for a book authored or edited by Bates. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I searched but did not find more reviews than the ones listed above. One review of a coauthored book (Juvenile delinquency) and three of an edited volume (Through the Eye of Katrina) is not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mentioned here in a peer review of the work they co-authored, [6]. Seems ok, not a slam dunk, but just enough with all given above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 03:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavoor, Mangalore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to Draft for improvement. Moved back without a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Karnataka. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems pretty well sourced and a quick Google search brings up multiple mentions of the locality. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times of India has it as a ward of Mangalore https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/sewage-treatment-plant-bane-for-kavoor/articleshow/104636.cms and lists neighbourhoods within. Another source reports the opening of a police station in Kavoor. I'm satisfied Kavoor is a legally recognised populated place so has a presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarvala Day School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, with no reliable sources coming up online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails the General Notability Guidelines, WP:GNG. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bims Paradise English High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources on Google either. Adler3 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL due to lack of sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything better than Justdial and similar database entries. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Junior Bake Off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Bake Off (series 7)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I raised my issue about seasons of Junior Bake Off at Talk:The Great British Bake Off, but I've yet to see replies there. Right now, I'm nominating this season as a test nomination before nominating other seasons.

Apparently, this season article consists of recapping people's bakes and ratings, but that's not the main reason to nominate. (Other season articles of reality TV series recap what happened in those seasons.) Other than TV viewerships/ratings, either I couldn't find other reliable sources verifying this season's notability, or very few or no reliable sources cover this season significantly.

Furthermore, list of winners and runners-up is already summarized in Junior Bake Off, and the whole season article may not comply with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Should be redirected to the parent article Junior Bake Off. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and Events. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Junior Bake Off". Daily Mirror. 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2023-05-07 – via PressReader.
  The review notes: "It’s the semi final of this brilliantly fun and colourful series that is far superior even to the original hit show. The success is largely down to host Harry Hill, who knows how to talk to kids like adults, while also making ridiculous jokes and silly asides to camera (just for the grown ups to enjoy). Baking hotshot Liam Charles and pastry chef Rav Gill are excellent judges, always managing to find a positive even when presented with the most disastrous of bakes – well, you wouldn’t want the kids crying."
2. Wallis, Sara (2022-01-16). "Don't write off C4's Junior Bake Off as an inferior toddler version". The People. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "DON'T write off C4's Junior Bake Off as an inferior toddler version. It's actually way better than the real thing. ... Then there's Harry Hill, who is utterly brilliant as he cracks mad jokes, making adult asides to camera that go over the kids' heads. Judges Liam Charles and Rav Gill are constructive without being patronising and the contestants are all talented and cute. Plus it's funny, with way more smiles than the adult version."
3. Morris, Lauren (2022-01-07). "Junior Bake Off 2022 air date: judges, contestants and news: The Bake Off spin-off is back for its 2022 series as another line-up of young chefs take to the tent". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Junior Bake Off is back next week with a brand new series. Hosted by comedian Harry Hill, the new season will see 16 young bakers put their culinary skills to the test as they try to impress judges Liam Charles and Ravneet Gill over the course of two heats. ... Read on for everything you need to know about Junior Bake Off 2022."
4. Martin, Emily (2022-01-11). "Paul Hollywood shows his softer side as Channel 4's Junior Bake Off gets off to a hilarious start. On Junior Bake off things don't just go a bit wrong, they go so, so very terribly wrong it's absolutely wonderful from start to finish". Nottingham Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Harry Hill hosts this new series of the junior version of the baking competition with Ravneet Gill and also Paul Hollywood this week standing in for Liam Charles, who was off ill. ... The first technical challenge? Mini-piggy rolls. ... The judges have to then try the cakes (horror) and offer a few comments like: "The don't really look like pigs". ... Paul Hollywood walks round gently trying to suggest things that might help the bakers and it's very nice to see his softer side although he still retains the cheeky blue-eyed twinkle."
5. Othman, Zaharah (2022-01-23). "Aisya sails through junior bake-off". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Aisya Syahrul's use of her Malaysian heritage in culinary skills wowed judges in Britain's Junior Bake Off (JBO) recently that saw her and three other participants sailing through to the next round of heat that will hopefully take them to the finals on Jan 28, where one of them will be crowned Junior Bake Off champion. ... Aisya, 12, had consistently won over judges Liam Charles, British baker and TV presenter, and Ravneet Gill, British pastry chef and author, particularly with her pastries. In episode nine, the youngster, who says she wants to follow her father's footsteps in medicine, created what the judges described as "light and crumbly pastry" peanut butter tarts that "melts in the mouth. During the Pop Tart challenge, she got first place in the technical challenge."
6. Allday, Jasmine (2022-01-21). "Junior Bake Off fans claim show is a 'fix' as hopeful scrapes through to next round". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2022-01-21. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "However, some viewers tuning in to watch the show wanted Mia to be saved over Gabriel, despite both of them putting in a great effort with their performance. It was dessert week this week and the young contestants were tasked with trying to create a rainbow baked Alaska, with Gabriel admitting he had never heard of the dessert - but still insisted he'd give it his best shot."
7. Nightingale, Laura (2022-01-25). "Junior Bake Off final challenges and when show is on TV. Don't miss the last episode of the popular spin-off Channel 4 show". Surrey Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-02-05. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Hosted by Harry Hill, the Bake Off celebrity Liam Charles and superstar pastry chef Ravneet Gill will have the tough job of determining the winner. The youngsters will have to make ice-cream sandwiches and dessert jars concurrently, ready to share with family and friends at a party. In their most important bake of the series, the finalists' last chance to impress comes in the form of the ultimate Showstopper - a finale fun fair cake."
8. Honebeek, Talya (2022-01-12). "Junior Bake Off under fire after young bakers struggle with 'tough' challenge. Ranveet Gill and special guest Paul Hollywood judged the bakers' creations in Junior Bake Off's Bread Day". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Channel 4's Junior Bake Off has come under fire after the judges set a rather "tough" technical challenge. Chaos ensued after the remaining young bakers were asked to make panda-shaped steamed buns filled with ginger and garlic mushrooms accompanied by a soy dipping sauce for their Bread Day technical challenge."
9. Tonks, Phoebe (2022-01-24). "BBC Junior Bake Off star Fraser set for the final after York teen gets Star Baker three times". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2022-09-27. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "A talented young baker from Yorkshire has made it all the way to finals week in this years exciting edition of Junior Bake Off. ... In the first of this week's finals tonight, Fraser is set to take on chocolate, a notoriously difficult ingredient to work with as the young bakers are tasked with creating both a miso and chocolate sweet-and-salty bake alongside a selection of mini chocolate mousse mirror glazed cakes."
10. Bullimore, Emma (2022-01-10). "Hooray for Hollywood - Tonight's TV junior bake off Channel 4, 5pm". Evening Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "All the challenges are cakebased today, starting with a tricky technical task, making mini piggy rolls (mini rolls with a strawberry filling, decorated to look like hogs). It's a tough one to get right, as the bakers struggle to nail the piggy resemblance while also ensuring the sponge is light and the filling is tangy. And they're trying not to be distracted by Harry's jokes, too."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow series 7 of Junior Bake Off to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether to use Daily Mirror per WP:RSP#Daily Mirror, but the quote from the source (IMO contextually) praises hosting and judging performances, not the whole seventh series. Another Daily Mirror article as a whole is quoting Twitter posts that alleged production interference or "fixing".

Couldn't find RSN discussions about The Sunday People, a tabloid, but it does the same thing that the Daily Mirror article does. I don't think both of them contextually discusses the whole seventh series itself, like young/juvenile contestants themselves.

The quote from Radio Times, more reliable to me than the former two, was just previewing or advertising (the premiere of) the seventh series. One from Nottingham Post (tabloid), mainly about Paul Hollywood substituting for Liam Charles, can be easily summarised in the parent series article Junior Bake Off and (IMHO) doesn't improve the 7th series's notability much.

The quote from New Straits Times about one Malaysian juvenile baker Aisya Syahrul, one of runners-up, seems to be more about her than the whole 7th series itself. Unsure whether that's sufficient proof of the 7th series's notability as much as proof of her supposed notability, but (contextually) that makes her known only for her Junior Bake Off appearance, which WP:BLP1E is against.

A Surrey Advertiser article seems promising... at first, but then I figured it's just previewing or advertising a then-upcoming episode. So is a Birmingham Mail (tabloid) article, but it's mostly citing Twitter posts by viewers.

A Huddersfield Daily Examiner (tabloid) article about one of runners-up seems promising, but it's more about him than the whole series itself. Yet his notability only for his Junior Bake Off appearance would be against WP:BLP1E.

Quote from an Evening Chronicle (tabloid) article seems to be previewing one of then-upcoming episodes.

Honestly, I don't know how you think such tabloid articles are reliable proof of the seventh series's notability. Furthermore, news or tabloid articles about individual juvenile bakers.... Anyways, I'm unsure how those sources will change my stance about this (seventh) series. George Ho (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the Daily Mirror and The People to be sufficiently reliable for television reviews as one editor at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Daily Mirror said about the Daily Mirror. The sources cover the series by reviewing the performances of the host and judges. The Radio Times is a strong source that discusses the whole series (the host, the judges, and the contestants). These sources are sufficient for the series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I provided the sources that discuss episodes and the individual contestants to show that the article can be significantly expanded to discuss each episode and some of the contestants' performances in the series. There is more than enough content in the sources to justify a standalone article about the series. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources analyzed above seem fine. Daily Mirror is iffy, but with all the others, it helps notability. They aren't spreading rumours about one star on the series, they're talking about the show. It's not going to be on the same level/language as the BBC, but it's a critical review. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a BBC source for one of the judges, for good measure [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The info provided by BBC is already explained in the Junior Bake Off article, but... ah, well. George Ho (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've deflated my souffle. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Junior Bake Off as a premature, unjustified WP:SPINOFF. The little writeup Junior Bake Off (series 7) has to offer is badly needed at the target. Applies to all annual editions, except for series 2 and 8 that should be redirected. gidonb (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but which info do you think is worth merging into Junior Bake Off? From what I can see, the elimination list and results charts are tremendous. Of course, we can do without names of bakes (not bakers) and technical challenge rankings. Probably just brief summarized chart of heats and finals would do? George Ho (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it above. The merge refers to the text. Junior Bake Off is short. Junior Bake Off (series 7) is flimsy. There needs to be justification for a WP:SPINOFF or WP:SPINOUT. Nonesuch here! gidonb (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this revision is what you would prefer over the current one. Right? Honestly, the sections about their respective series/seasons in the older revision seemed too large (especially to edit) and harder to condense. But maybe I'm looking at things incorrectly. George Ho (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just replace the text in the target with what exists in the source. Then redirect. That's all. gidonb (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge brief properly sourced paragraph into Junior Bake Off. Fails GNG and BIO. The above source eval shows there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources brief and from promos in routine entertainment news, nothing with SIGCOV. This is an unneeded spinoff fork. // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SPINOFF says, "There are two situations where spinoff articles frequently become necessary". The first situation: "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem". Junior Bake Off (series 7) already is a very large article that contains tables about the series (the bakers, the results, and a summary of each episode). It would be undue weight to merge all the material to the parent article so this is a valid spinoff. The sources I've listed here contain critical commentary about series 7 and discuss the bakers, their performances throughout series 7, and summaries of each episodes. The article can be substantially expanded with these sources. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment - I've been thinking: I can't help wonder whether WP:NEVENT applies to seasons/series of reality TV shows, like this one. After all, it's nonfiction. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Series 7 of the Junior Bakeoff more than meets wikipedias notability guidelines, and is a high quality article that has no reason to be deleted.

Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Junior Bake Off article had per season chapters of about 4 lousy sentences per season. Junior Bake Off is a short article. Since the article accumulated a lot of "deadweight" in the form of fancruft tables, someone seriously erred and spun off the seasons anyway, leaving us with about 4 sentences in the spun-off articles and only about 2 in the parent, probably to give more space for the deadweight fancruft, turning the parent and all its children into POOR quality articles. Nominator nevertheless took this into the rabbit hole of notability, took pride in not looking into the problem as a whole, and others followed them right into the notability hole. This article and its siblings, however, call for an information governance solution and a bit more than one-dimensional thinking. gidonb (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ok with a !merge, the info will still be useful in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lflin16 and Cunard: You okay with the merger proposal as well? George Ho (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep! I think a merge is a good solution, at least the articles info will be helpful, and not deleted.Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motherless (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Motherless" (not having a mother) is ambiguous with only one other topic: Motherless (film). A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER); the primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Where the primary topic redirect Motherless should target (Single parent or Orphan) is a matter for WP:RFD and does not require a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator with thanks to other editors for finding other entries for the page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, certainly don't need this disambiguation page because at best it refers to only two topics. I don't think it needs to refer to Single parent anyway, as that article is looking at things from the perspective of the parent, not the state of the child, and if a link to Orphan is appropriate, that can be done by a hat-note. If more topics appear, then of course disambig can be reinstated. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone this discussion until an RfD has decided where to point the Motherless Primary Topuc redirect (I support Orphan as better than Single parent). Then we can agree to delete this dab page, once we know where to put the hatnote which replaces it. PamD 22:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone I've added three potential articles, and I'm sure our descendents will find many more. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mougnini Tape

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, a footballer who played 57 minutes in the Israeli highest league as his highest level of participation, and lack of WP:SIGCOV ensuing from that. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ivory Coast-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izidor Balažič

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find anything that would allow Balažič to pass WP:GNG or the much lower bar of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Even a Slovenian source search doesn't yield anything decent about the footballer of this name. Best I can find is a trivial mention in a website run by his former employer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 06:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraconservatism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a term which is a synonym of Far-right politics, and should not be a separate article. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article for ultraconservatism has been deleted so many times due to it being a redirect. If it were to simply be a synonym for Far-right politics, can we have consensus that it should redirect to that article? There have been plenty of users in the past who have argued that ultraconservative ≠ far-right, so this clarification is necessary.--WMrapids (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ it does not seem to be as clear-cut of a synonym as you propose it is. Sources in the article define ultraconservatism very clearly and do not make a case of it being just a synonym for the far-right. Willing to change vote if proven wrong with sources that make the assertion. –Vipz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- After JPxG's observation, I'm leaning to redirecting to Conservatism#Authoritarian conservatism. Another suggested target article is Far-right politics, although I find the former more relevant (while also referring to the latter article as the Main one). –Vipz (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Vipz on the sources' definitons of ultraconservatism. HeartCat1^💬_📝 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Vipz, the sources make a distiction between the far-right and ultraconservatives, and from a political point of view, a distinction can be made through their tolerance of moderates and social beliefs. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ’Ultraconservatism’ is a term I find very useful, as it simply refers to an extreme form of conservatism. The term far-right is sometimes used to refer to very non-conservative groups such as revolutionary nazis or hardcore libertarians, making the relation to classical conservatism dubious. Trakking (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trakking. "Far right" can be anything extreme that is not Leftist, including Conservatism. Therefore, "Ultraconservatism" is a part of "Far right", not a synonym.

Then, my opinion is: the article "Ultraconservatism" should be kept. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry, I forgot to write it clearly. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The definition of "ultraconservatism" is very different from the sources used by WMrapids. Jason H. Gart's definition says "Ultraconservatism, which combine(s) traditional anticommunist rhetoric with fresh acrimony toward civil rights legislation, welfare programs, organized labor, and taxation" while, according to the New York Times, "Huntington sees ultraconservatism as a broad part of the right-wing spectrum, encompassing fringe extremists, racists, violent reactionaries and those willing to moderate their views when and where necessary.", contrasting with his definition: "Ultraconservatives occupy a broad section of the right-wing continuum, wedged between conservative pragmatists, those willing to moderate their views and work with the political center, and fringe extremists.". The one from El Orden Mundial says: "(ultraconservatism) adds elements such as populism, anti-immigration or protectionism to traditional values, and encompasses a recent international wave that includes former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Spanish Vox party or the US radical right promoted by figures like Trump. These movements have also been described as neoconservative due to similarities such as the strong rejection of the left. However, the importance they give to national sovereignty contradicts the foreign policy interventionism of US neoconservatism".

----

Neither of the three sources used have a coherent definition, the first one labeling "ultraconservatism" as opposition to civil rights legislation, welfarism, taxation combined with anti-communism, the second one as a branch of the right-wing composed of extremists, racists and reactionaries and rightist willing to cooperate with centrists (not a concrete term but an umbrella one), the fourth one as a populist and protectionist variant of neo-conservatism that also supports traditional values (doesn't common conservatism also defend traditional values?) and opposes interventionism. Also note how the user that made the article uses directly a definition from the Oxford dictionary to start the article, violating the Wikipedia:DICDEF rule.

----

~~I invited some users with expertise in the field of "conservatism" from the WikiProject Conservatism to debate if the article should be deleted or not.~~ Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) User indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many political ideologies don't have a consistent definition, or you could find varying definitions in use in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with previous commemts: the concept may be partially included sometimes in the "far-right" label, but not necessarily. The concept is properly sourced, too. If the New Oxford American Dictionary, among other reliable sources, consider that this is a relevant and stand-alone concept, who are we to deny it? PedroAcero76 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. I think this might be something of, I don't know what to call it -- a "RACKENSTEIN"? Essentially, all of the sources here do use the phrase "ultraconservative", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group. To explain this a little better, I offer an analogy: we can imagine an article called gigantic tree, for which exact phrase a newspapers.com search brings up 26,000 results. But this does not indicate that anybody is using "gigantic tree" to mean a specific type of thing meaningfully separate from a "large tree" or a "huge tree". You could try anyway: A gigantic tree is any tree that is of notably large size. Different commentators have given different heights for a gigantic tree, ranging from 50 feet to 300 feet. That looks like what has happened here. The 1961 New York Times article says, for example: "Senator Jacob K. Javits said today ultra-conservative fanaticism in the United States was under control. But he warned that it 'represents a danger to the Republican party'." Here, it just seems like he is talking about people who are very conservative (i.e. much more so than the Republican party of the time). This article seems to use it the same way: note that the abstract says "systematic analyses on how far-right leaders recreate their countries' foreign policy identity are still underdeveloped"; it doesn't at any point advance "ultraconservative" as a thing separate from being unusually far-right. If there are any sources that actually establish or comment on "ultraconservatism" as something separate from the simple fact of someone being extremely conservative, ping me, and I will strike this "delete" !vote -- but I do not see any here. jp×g 07:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: These are very good points, and I would have most likely voted for 'delete' the first time had that been nominator's rationale. Would you say there's merit in a redirect and/or a paragraph & anchor about it somewhere in Conservatism and/or Far-right politics (without all the coatrack content)? –Vipz (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer: relisting may be a good idea. –Vipz (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: as the author of the original article, what do you think about above (please also see my new vote on the top of the page)? I presume you also saw my ping in this diff regarding the coatrack content (Germany and France sections) that was added by another editor. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vipz: It is difficult for me because there are good arguments against coat racking, but there seems to be a difference. My main concern is, are there reliable sources that explicitly say that far-right = ultraconservatism or authoritarian conservatism = ultraconservatism? There are sources that explain ultraconservatism and define it, though I have not found any sources that equate ultraconservatism with anything else. WMrapids (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: I'll go with the latter for now because that's what I proposed above. There's a plentiful of sources that describe certain ruling regimes as ultraconservative, authoritarian [...] or ultraconservatism, authoritarianism [...] (incl. swapped order of these words) and these two go hand-in-hand in most, but finding explicit "ultraconservatism = authoritarian conservatism" statements can prove a bit more difficult. Here are a few that might come close:
Use with Care: Managing Australia's Natural Resources in the Twenty-first Century, pg. 256 ultra-conservatism, a weltanschauung characterised by a strong commitment to an authoritarian social order [...]

How White Evangelicals Think: The Psychology of White Conservative Christians, pg. 84: Ultraconservative ideologies then cause people to embrace authoritarian policies and leaders in the face of persistent threats, real or imagined.⁶⁹ This happens crossculturally. The specics may be dierent, but the general process is the same.

Encyclopedia of Power, pg. 33: On average, authoritarian personality is still used primarily for ultraconservatives such as religious fundamentalists, military dictators, theocrats, and so on.

Political Socialization in Western Society: An Analysis from a Life-span Perspective, pg. 129: [...] They found authoritarianism to be related to political ultra-conservatism and fascism.

The central theme in many other sources is that they are illiberal, anti-democratic, nationalist, ethnocentric, extreme right, etc. and that ultraconservatives tend to argue for authoritarianism. I can link and list out quotes for any of these if needed. –Vipz (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: It's about the same as what I found. Interpreting the sources in such a way would be WP:SYNTH, so unless we have something more definitive, it could be inappropriate to make this article a redirect. WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Far-right politics: This is a WP:CFORK. There's no substantial difference between the two, they're both conservative extremism. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultraconservatism is clearly different from general conservatism. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: any source that states clearly that ultraconservatism and far-right politics are the same? Then, whe should also merge or redirect conservatism to right-wing politics, etc. This is not endorsed in any way by reliable sources as far as I know. PedroAcero76 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a consensus for keep? If we want a separate discussion for possibly making the article a redirect page, I would suggest opening a separate move discussion when this discussion is closed.--WMrapids (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not withdrawing the proposal. JPxG has expressed my views better than I have, specifically with: the sources here do use the phrase "ultraconservative", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation as a redirect then? Because there are three separate opinions on this deletion proposal; delete, keep and redirect. Not asking you to withdraw your proposal at all, just seeking clarified responses. WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is part of the lexicon. Ultra-Liberal brings back fewer results but is also defined and used just not as often. If this article is kept Ultra-Liberal may warrant an article as well. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the term "ultraconservatism" is a suitable topic for an article (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT) or that the concept is? TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ultra-liberal" is WP:OTHERSTUFF and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. jp×g's comment above addresses exactly this. –Vipz (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: Are you suggesting a redirect then? We should still determine where a redirect should go since the notable usage of the term itself warrants some sort of article attention, whether it be a redirect or independent. WMrapids (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: I certainly am suggesting a redirect, as can be seen in my reiterated vote on the top. The topic is about conservatism (albeit of an extreme kind) so I see Conservatism as the appropriate redirect target. I'm not sure whether a merge of some content is warranted if that is done, and what's the best approach. Without much thought about it, #Authoritarian conservatism section seemed most relevant. –Vipz (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this fall on the spectrum of conservatism? We have "very conservative" (111,000 Google News results), "ultra-conservative" (6,970), "super-conservative" (77), "extremely conservative" (11,600), and "tremendously conservative" (10). I would say that these phrases are just happenstance resulting from someone putting an intensifier on "conservative", and that "super-conservative" and "extremely conservative" do not actually refer to significantly different concepts. There are no sources I can see that lay out a spectrum with meaningful distinctions. (Parenthetically, note also the news results for "infra-conservative" (0), "red conservative" (67), "blue conservative" (also 67), "X-conservative" (62) and "gamma conservative" (3)). jp×g 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness International Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any decent sourcing in either English or Nepali (जागरूकता अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय एकेडेमी) to show WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Current article has no independent sources and is borderline WP:PROMO. In fact, removing the PROMO would leave only one sentence. The only source of any note that I could find was Kpadhne but this doesn't look like independent WP:RS at all as there is no evidence of editorial oversight. Also, the Kpadhne is full of PROMO sentences like If you are residing in the Shankhamul area then, Awareness International Academy can be the best school choice for your children and Awareness International Academy is one of the best private school located in Shankhamul which you would not usually find in RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Gaurav Sharma (politician). RL0919 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm the page creator. Article has been tagged as not WP:GNG for a while, website not updated since before the by-election. Tried sending an email to them 3 weeks ago and no response. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunIsOptional: Do you yourself have concerns about this meeting GNG? Judging from your rationale, it sounds like you only nominated this for deletion because someone else said it should be deleted? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existing coverage of the party itself is pretty minor, with most being on Sharma himself, and given the likelyhood that they don't exist anymore I don't expect additional coverage. The rest is already covered in the leader Gaurav Sharma's article, which given the only election the party was in was just him, I don't see a need for what is essentially a duplicate article. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunIsOptional: That checks out.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaurav Sharma (politician). Only one source mentions the Momentum Party and it's a trivial mention. Either merging or deleting/redirecting works in this case, considering 99% of the article/sources isn't about the party itself.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gaurav Sharma (politician). Not worth retaining this article by itsself. NealeWellington (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Party appears to have lost momentum. A merge with the Sharman article is appropriate. Schwede 66 15:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons given above. The content can be adequately covered within Sharma's article, so all we need is a redirect unless the party comes back to life and nominates other candidates. Axver (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Roberson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this profile in Modern Drummer but nothing else pointing to notability, and I'm not even clear on who wrote that profile (the text block along the bottom of the page implies this is just promo the magazine gives to anyone who mails in asking for it rather than anything sign of relevance) so it might fail as a reliable source anyway. May also be a COI issue given the page creator's username.QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some odd ancient history here. The user Dante Roberson appeared on WP for just one single day: April 1, 2006, during which he created this article in a single edit, meaning that he probably copy/pasted the text from his own promo sites elsewhere. A few minutes later, a different user tied his article to the surname article Roberson, leading to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberson, which in turn resulted in no consensus and allowed this Dante Roberson article to survive. It has been sitting here ever since, and with no significant updates to anything that he has done since 2006. It could/should have been deleted at any time during this history. Roberson clearly is/was a trusty studio hand and go-to drummer for musicians in need of assistance and he has a lot of credits, but he has not achieved any reliable media coverage of his career in his own right. This is the state of affairs both in 2006 and in 2023. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously had an AFD a few minutes after creation so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling the name gives startling results- about fifth or sixth hit was an article on knife crime published by the Bristol Cable and all but one of the previous hits were unrelated. There are hits, but none of sufficient quality to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkamal Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails in wp:singer nd wp:nactor . no reliable sources availble in article Worldiswide (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of reliable Hindi sources are available for the article. News18, Zee News (Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand is a part of Zee Media Corporation), Times of India, ABP news, Jagran are all important media houses of India. Also, articles of singers less notable than him are available and included in Wikipedia. For example Priyanka Singh, Ritesh Pandey (singer) . I will be expanding it in near future and more than 50 Sources are available for it from trusted media houses.Admantine123 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources covering the personality in depth(WP:THREE)- [8], since the subject belong to regional film Industry Bhojpuri Films, we have most of our sources in Hindi language; Bhojpuri is a dialect of Hindi.This source talking about him becoming one of the most viewed singer in Bhojpuri music industry. (From ABP News)

[9], this source says that in 2022, he left Pawan Singh and Khesari Lal Yadav in viewership in the beginning of that year. It also talks about him as one of the established singer of industry. (From ABP News)

[10] this source specially covers his biography and tells us that he left Khesari Lal Yadav behind in Net Worth. (ABP News) Admantine123 (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with the Admantine123 Views. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Torrance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, NBAD and BIO. Only source found is this, but it is just ROUTINE and is not SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Scotland. Timothytyy (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found BBC and, a local source, Ayr Advertiser, but neither of these show anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The dispute over WP:ROUTINE aside, significant coverage from a single outlet would not satisfy WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Gilmour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, NBAD and BIO. No coverage found online, and achievements are not enough to provide assumptions of notability via SNG. Timothytyy (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Scotland. Timothytyy (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there were some online news used Angus Gilmour as subject on their article. 1, 2. Stvbastian (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 does not provide SIGCOV. As both sources are from the same website, any proof of reliability for it? Or is this a case of ROUTINE? Timothytyy (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1 is enough to satisfied SIGCOV. You can check the reliability by ur self. Stvbastian (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stvbastian It fails GNG because that source is WP:ROUTINE. Timothytyy (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Both articles above are routine coverage and do not demonstrate significant reliable coverage exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article #1 clearly have a sigcov of Angus Gilmour. All sentences talks about Gilmour.Stvbastian (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed the other message, that article is just ROUTINE. Please find more SIGCOV if you still believe it passes GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed wht is and is not routine. The article not "just routine" at all.. From head to toe talks about Gilmour, that means the article hve sigcov of Gilmour. Stvbastian (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know what routine is, but an article that wouldn't appear if he didn't win the title is definitely not GNG-contributing. Timothytyy (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. Why article #1 not a routine-> thts not about just a sport scores (especially the sources not a "box scores"; see: WP:NOTROUTINE) There were some detail facts in the article, tht means the article clearly have sigcov of Angus Gilmour not just a routine as u said.Stvbastian (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only parts where coverage is provided.

Gilmour, 18, said: "This is a really big title for us because it’s the first European tournament we’ve won. The guys we beat in the final we hadn’t played before so they were new to us. It’s good to get the victories against them and also good that we didn’t drop a set in the whole competition."

...

Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years.

Being European No.1s will help the pair in their quest for the European under 19 Championships in Milan this April. Gilmour added: "It’s fantastic to be No. It will be a big confidence boost for us preparing for the European Junior Championships. We are definitely hoping to get a medal there and if we work hard there should be no reason why we can’t."

Let's discuss on whether this makes the subject pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly sigcov and not a routine article as you said.. Here i give u example the routine article -> 3.. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't see anything about badminton at your link. Can you put the correct link here? Thanks a lot!

For source 1 there are only quotes from the player and "Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years." which is not coverage and therefore may not be able to demonstrate GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't act like u don't understand lah. As i said above, the link #3 is an "example" for WP:ROUTINE article (article that only show results of the tournament, without explanation). If you still dont understand, here another example for routine article -> 4. Still don't understand? need more example? feel free to ask me.. And for source #1, Angus Gilmour not just a trivial mention. Surpass trivial mention means the article is a sigcov, especially he is the main topic in the article. From head to toe we can get some detail about Angus Gilmour: -He is from Troon; -He won the Belgium Open; -At that time he was European #1 junior badminton player; He is a member of Badminton Scotland's Junior High Performance squad. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided so far are ROUTINE. The first Daily Record article is plainly a routine announcement that he won a tournament, and furthermore offers little more than two sentences of non-quote coverage of him--nowhere close to SIGCOV even if it wasn't RotM. NOTNEWS states For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage, and ROUTINE expands with Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches... NSPORT then implements these (non-exhaustive) definitions of "routine coverage" and "routine events" in its guidance on what contributes to SIGCOV for athletes. The article on winning the Belgium Open was planned coverage of a scheduled event and would have been written regardless of who won it; it is ROUTINE. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE examples: Modern-day sporting events appear regularly in blogs or in local news as sports scores (sometimes called "box scores") "without details". Such box scores are examples of routine coverage. And the article not just such a box scores. routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability. Stvbastian (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that definition? I am quoting the description and examples of routine coverage in our policies and guidelines, which override anything said in essays. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup i do also gettin the definition based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NOTROUTINE. Stvbastian (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Routine or not, I just don't think the above sources are significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The final comment has it exactly right; we should not be synthesizing content in a novel way, and if no other source treat the topic as we do, our article should not exist. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starburst Intersection

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail GNG, and interchanges are required to meet GNG. Most of the sources talk about the roads that intersect rather than the intersection itself. Other sources are not secondary. [11] comes close but comes off as part editorial. It is unclear whether Greater Greater Washington articles that come up in Google news can be considered reliable. Rs chen 7754 05:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C.. Rs chen 7754 05:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Starburst Plaza, a phrase that already directs to the article. Starburst Plaza is the name of the plaza between the Bladensburg Road and Benning Road legs of the intersection. If the focus of the article is on the plaza rather than on the intersection, we can better evaluate whether the article should stand alone or be merged into a list of similar features like a hypothetical List of squares in Washington, D.C. or List of plazas in Washington, D.C..
- Comment The plaza is just one component of the overall Starburst Intersection, arguably less important than the traffic configuration or history of how the streets came to be arranged, which dates back to the L'Enfant Plan. While the plaza may deserve its own article in the future, it is not the primary focus of this article. Annettet (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Greater Greater Washington is a volunteer-driven site that is more commentary and news-aggregator than actual news. The site has some journalistic value, but I would not consider it a reliable source. V C 19:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Starburst Intersection is a convergence of streets, neighborhoods, transit modalities, and District of Columbia communities past and present. It is referred to by this name in local news reports^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7], real estate news^[8]^[9], and materials produced by the D.C. government^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]. I have modified the main article to include citations that are more "notable." Annettet (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – To the best of my knowledge this article is the only resource, online or otherwise, that connects the dots between the multiple aspects of this unique location in Washington, D.C. It would be a shame to erase this information from existence, particularly as the area continues to undergo rapid change and development. Over the last 90 days the article has consistently received 5-10 views per day. This may seem low by many standards, but indicates to me that there is a steady stream of people curious to learn about this place called the "Starburst Intersection". Annettet (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Annettet's utter failure to find significant coverage of this intersection despite major WP:REFBOMBing and the attempt to split this out from the topic of Starburst Plaza, which might have some notability. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable in Wikipedia terms. The "improved" article doesn't really discuss the intersection/area as a whole, just things that may have happened to pass through the area. A notable location would have references that provide significant coverage of the location itself, not merely things that happen to be in that location. The only source maybe giving SIGCOV (Giambrone 2015) does so for Starburst Plaza, but not Starburst Intersection. The views per day "argument" is totally spurious and the other arguments are appeals to emotion, not Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not intentionally WP:REFBOMB (and in fact didn't know that was "a thing" until seeing the accusation in the previous comment). I was trying to make the case that the "Starburst Intersection" is a real place, referenced regularly by people who live in, work in, and work for the District of Columbia. Annettet (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is disputing the intersection exists. We're disputing it is notable for this encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added photo of the historical marker at the Starburst Intersection. Annettet (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per Annettet. If no one else has connected the dots, we can't either. That would be the definition of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Imzadi 1979 → 13:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Weil, Martin (June 5, 2022). "Man slain in Northeast Washington". Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Man fatally shot on Benning Road in Northeast D.C." Washington Post. May 3, 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Laris, Michael (October 22, 2018). "From Model T to driverless: Ford to launch fleet of robot cars in Washington". Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Giambrone, Andrew (July 23, 2015). "At Starburst Plaza, a Community Tries to Combat Synthetic Drug Use". Washington City Paper. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Di Caro, Martin (April 7, 2015). "Before Passengers Grace D.C. Streetcar, Rails Already Under Repair". Washington City Paper. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Heim, Daniel (February 1, 2008). "Officials Hold Groundbreaking for H Street Trolley". Roll Call. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Smith, Max (March 26, 2019). "Redesign of Maryland Ave. in Northeast aims to improve safety". WTOP-FM. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Sernovitz, Daniel J. (October 5, 2021). "Hechinger Mall owners seeking replacement tenants after Modell's closes". Washington Business Journal. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "The 4 Big Developments Planned Around DC's Starburst Intersection". July 5, 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Transportation Technical Report, H Street/Benning Road Corridor, Washington, DC" (PDF). May 2013. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "DC Streetcar System Plan" (PDF). October 2010. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Mayor Bowser to Join the Metropolitan Police Department at the Citywide National Night Out Kickoff". July 31, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Appendix B, H St/Benning Maintenance Facilities (images)" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Action Agenda Progress Report 2010" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Maryland Ave NE Streetscape Project". Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "DC Streetcar System Plan" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ "Florida Avenue Multimodal Transportation Study" (PDF). February 2015. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus indicates that the current state of the article is not egregious enough to bring out the explosives. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public interest technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT might be warranted for this promotional article, or perhaps draftification is an WP:ATD here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, and I am currently researfching PIT, writing a book on it and looking at it from the POV of the SciPol Wikiedia project, there are a couple of books on it, an NGO network and a university network supoorting it, with lots of webpages covering it, and that's it, as it only started in 2020. What does not help is that the public Interest main article is crappy. My gut instinct based on that is to add a decent summary of PIT to the public interest main article and then delete the PIT article. Still, I'd like to think about it for a while. Johncdraper (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to allude to the fact that the public interest main article needs work and expansion, not that this article shoulde be deleted. There are several topics not covered on public interest other than the technology aspect.

As for the field being new, the growing work around it, specifically in the academic work, might be reason enough for it to continue growing on its own. Darrowlykos (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep - Variety of sources in the article are reliable and dedicated to the subject - so this is definitely a thing. As an umbrella article public Interest has a short summary and links here - which should be perfectly fine. Also - Johncdraper has done some cleanup since the nom. ResonantDis_tortion 20:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC
Keep per WP:RS and WP:GNG albeit the article seems to need an overhaul. For example, Bruce Schneier is not even mentioned or in the refs, he does a lot in this area using this term, e.g. see here. I don't think the article is promotional but haven't checked it thoroughly. It probably needs expansion as well as some restructuring, e.g. structuring by field of technology (e.g. Software, etc). Note that many sources use this terminology, however many about relevant topics use phrasing like public interest alternatives for important AI tools¹ despite also being related. It would be good to transclude a brief summary with a wikilink to the article at Public Interest but merging this article to there would be too detailed.

Prototyperspective (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 08:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Kapoor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACTOR and GNG. There is only some passing mention in some film reviews. The language used to write the article gives the impression that this is a likely attempt to promote the subject. Thesixserra (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Thesixserra (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nallam Venkataramayya

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The closest approaches are 1) director of his own clinic, "Nallam Clinic"; 2) wrote a book "History of Medicine in French India"; 3; a number of miscellaneous positions and awards noted in "Posts and honors".

Neither the clinic nor the book appear to me to convey notability; I'm not familiar with all the things listed under "posts and honors", so I'm willing to be corrected, but they do not (at least on their own) appear to convey notability, either. (If an award was made in recognition of something that conveys notability, of course, that would be different, but no such things are noted in the article or in anything I can readily find.)

The article was started by and has been frequently edited by User:Drnallamv, whose edit history shows he has edited no other articles. Obviously the article's creation and continued editing by an editor who appears to be the subject raises WP:COI factors, which is not itself grounds for deletion, but in this case seems to be crossing the line into a mere vanity article.

I note that the article has previously been deleted, but that was under WP:BLPPROD, which I don't regard as having any real indication on notability one way or the other here. TJRC (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to have coverage in the Hindu. I assume the Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur also gives notability, does it not? The article needs better sourcing.
Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's thanked in a thesis here: http://nuxeo.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/041e3126-ca00-49c6-abf6-4c31afa8f209, I don't know if it's as a faculty advisor or not. He's also given a brief interview in a magazine in 2014, but it's a primary source, talking about the French climate in Pondichery. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a scanty resume, with much left out. Being a director of a clinic just makes him one of perhaps millions of clinic directors around the world. If the clinic bore his name, that would be notability. The career section also evokes a "so what?". He wrote one book - one only? Unclear why he got the awards, but perhaps because he was part of a group assisting during an area disaster or any other circumstance. Other awards are not explained, and could be what anyone gets if they stay with a profession long enough. By comparison, see Sanjay Gupta. This article just doesn't tell us Nallam Venkataramayya is notable for anything. — Maile (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes first criteria of WP:ANYBIO as recipient of Legion of Honour, highest French order of merit. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to clarify all the editors that recipients of Legion of Honour are generally kept in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pattison (RAF officer). 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to argue for deletion of an article that ought to be retained; but is that true for all classes of Legion of Honor, regardless of level? The Legion of Honour article lists six classes, and while the top 3 or 4 (Grand-maître, Grand-croix, Grand officier, and probably Commandeur) look pretty exclusive, there's almost 75,000 in the lowest-level Chevalier class, which is Venkataramayya's. Are we saying that all almost 75K Chevalier recipients are inherently notable just based on that award? TJRC (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖 Jack4576 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. L Faraone 03:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InMotion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student racing team lacks coverage in independent source to meet WP:NORG (Cursor is a publication from the student's university). MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NORG as well as the lack of secondary sources to be found. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search on Google News showed many independent sources that were English based. As they are based in the Netherlands, there might be other language articles that would have more resources to pull from. Additionally as an academic led student group, there are most likely other resources in JSTOR or academic presses. There was a promotional tag that someone placed and the student group does appear to be looking for corporate sponsors and there is the possibility that is somewhat reflected in how the article might have been originally written. I made a couple changes to the article to try and improve. Most of the citations would need to be completed with author, article titles, etc. I am interested in trying to work on this article and I will add it to my Watchlist after this post. Adam MLIS (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons provided by Adam MLIS Jack4576 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article covers a wide range of important and relevant topics. In particular, the names of scientists, racing drivers and companies that support this team. Perhaps some points like the vision are questionable, but for now I'm rooting for the article to remain --Loewstisch (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Krohn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've done some reasonable investigation online for reliable sources that would support notability for the voice actor who is the subject of this article, but have failed to find anything. I believe this is a controversial nomination owing to the passion that some editors might have over the work of this voice actor. I believe there is sufficient information to support some of the voice acting instances, but these should be placed in the respective work articles and do not contribute to notability of this voice actor in the context of Wikipedia. I am further feeling pressure to nominate this as a part of reducing the overall heft of the thousands of un-referenced living person biographies. I hope editors can find material to be able to retain the article. Regards. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, i don't consider somewhat prolific voice actors/ charactor actors like Aaron Krohn to be particularly notable. While Krohn actually has a ton of dubbing roles from his days at ADV Films, with more than a few being lead roles; he's left behind dubbing for a couple decades and isn't well-remembered by the English-speaking anime community today. I do have arguments against this page's deletion, but if they're rejected i still understand. The main thing is there is a lot of incorrect/ misleading/ unverified/ biased info floating around online for public figures, especially on IMDb. I figure a Wikipedia article could provide a place to put accurate sources for his career and the careers of others.

As a side note, is there a place on this website to post ideas for Wikimedia Foundation features and similar things? Starbeam2 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I managed to find about the subject were trivial mentions. While he has been involved in the production of many shows, there does not seem to be much in-depth coverage of him. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per multiple significant roles per NACTOR Jack4576 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jack4576: WP:NACTOR starts with the premise that the actor meets the general notability guideline; it supplements but does not supplant, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, changing vote Jack4576 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quacula

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character seems to fail GNG. The article has no good sources, and I couldn't find any from a Google search. If we don't want to delete it, redirecting it to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle is also an option. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are no reliable references cited in this article, and searching the internet turned up nothing. So redirecting it to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle sounds like a better alternative. DreamRimmer (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing in the article suggests this is notable. Ping me if sources are found to suggest otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or very very weak keep I found some coverage in books ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and [23], [24], [25], [26].★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Light Merge to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle. The sources available upon searching, including those linked to above, are very brief, with many of them being nothing but acknowledgements that it existed, which is not enough to show notability for a separate article. Redirecting to the main The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle is an obvious WP:ATD, though. And while the character is mentioned already on that page, there is absolutely no information there explaining who/what it is, so a couple of sentences should probably be merged over to at least give some context. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. This is mostly a recap of episodes that the character appeared in, without any reliable reception of its own. The sources verify the existence of the character and perhaps a brief summary is appropriate at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Alliance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a short lived business agreement between two airlines. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS // Timothy :: talk 02:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete information can be added to American Airlines and JetBlue. seperate page is unnecessary SurferSquall (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torrey Loomis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sources and fails WP:PRODUCER. I couldn't find anything substantial written about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very promotional, fails WP:GNG with nothing online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and Police. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JML1148. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous brief mentions of Loomis in the 2009–2011 period. Related to his law enforcement career there is some fairly lengthy coverage of his 2000 'Cop of the Year' award and his 2002 felony conviction.

Gab4gab (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Covais

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. Skynxnex (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Gay, Verne J (2018-03-14). "Kevin Covais, LI 'American Idol' finalist, appeared on 'This Is Us' finale". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Kevin Covais, Levittown’s most famous (and only) “American Idol” finalist, got what may have been his biggest break since the “Idol” run on Tuesday: He starred on the season finale of “This Is Us.” ... Since his 2006 “Idol” run — he made it into the top 12, was eliminated March 22, and sang “What’s New Pussycat?” in the finale — he’s appeared in several films and TV series, usually in short credited roles, but sometimes in uncredited ones. In 2014’s “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” for example, he was simply described as “Dorky Driver.” The “This Is Us” designation was “Ice Cream Employee,” but in Monday’s episode of Fox’s “Lucifer,” he’s credited as “Frazzled P.A.” Covais, 28, was born and raised in Levittown, and appeared on “Idol” while he was a junior at Island Trees High School."
2. Itzkoff, Dave (2006-04-09). "Is There Life After 'American Idol'?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "KEVIN COVAIS, known to millions of television viewers as Chicken Little, was anxiously pacing a high school office here, wringing his hands in anticipation. In the preceding week he was voted out of "American Idol," traded barbs with the judge Simon Cowell, bantered with Regis Philbin on "Live With Regis and Kelly," joked with Jimmy Kimmel on his late-night show and belted out his signature song, a warbling rendition of the pop standard "When I Fall in Love," on "Today." Now Mr. Covais, a geeky 16-year-old junior at Island Trees High School was about to face a hometown crowd of classmates and friends he hadn't seen in nearly three months of competition on "American Idol," and he was trying to play it cool. ... Before the show took over his life, he had thought about studying music or journalism at a nearby state college, but now his mind is focused on his immediate post-"Idol" career."
3. Jacks, Brian (2008-08-29). "Former 'American Idol' Finalist Kevin Covais Strips Down For 'College'". MTV News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Stripping down is all part of the hijinks Covais and his crew of merry miscreants get to take part in thanks to the film – one part “Animal House,” one part “American Pie” – about a group of three high school seniors visiting a college as prospective students who get roped into fraternity initiation."
4. Guzman, Rafer (2008-09-01). "For Mr. Little, the sky is rising". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via The Spokesman-Review.
  The article notes: "The last time most of us saw Kevin Covais, he was a pale, adorably scrawny 16-year-old running the gauntlet of Simon, Paula and Randy on Fox’s “American Idol” in 2006. ... At 19, he’s on his own for the first time, sharing a pad with roommates in Los Angeles. He makes his film debut in the new comedy “College,” and it’s no kiddie flick. ... Covais’ next project isn’t exactly a Disney movie, either. In “Labor Pains,” he plays an office intern opposite Lindsay Lohan, who stars as an unhappy worker faking a pregnancy to save her job. ... Instead, he took a semester of general classes at Hofstra University and turned to his other childhood dream – acting."
5. "From reality TV to reality: A year after his run on American Idol, Kevin Covais, a.k.a. Chicken Little, plans to study broadcast journalism in college". Tampa Bay Times. 2007-03-12. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Today, after what must seem like an extended Long Island version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, one could argue that the most excitement in Covais' life is waiting to graduate from high school and head off to college. His intended major? Broadcast journalism."
6. McGinn, Andrew (2008-03-26). "Covais gets cheeky in 'College' - *Kevin Covais / Season 5". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Kevin Covais, arguably the sweetest-cheeked guy ever to grace the Idol stage, will make his big-screen debut this fall in College. His co-stars include Nickelodeon star Drake Bell and Andrew Caldwell, a guy who has done a few episodes of Hannah Montana. ... In real life, Covais studied broadcast journalism at Hofstra University on Long Island for a semester last fall. It was his way of riding out the Hollywood writers' strike. Now, the native of Levittown, N.Y., has taken a leave of absence from college and gone in pursuit of more acting gigs."
7. Hoskins, Mike (2018-06-01). "An Interview with American Idol Veteran and T1 Actor Kevin Covais". Healthline. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "A native of Long Island, NY, Kevin was diagnosed with T1D as a kid almost two decades ago and is now living in Los Angeles in pursuit of his acting career. And we must say, it’s been remarkable to watch the 28-year-old embrace his dream for the past decade, since being eliminated in the final Idol round of 2006. He’s since taken on roles in the Disney sitcom Good Luck Charlie, the movie Transformers: Age of Extinction, and most recently on the season finale of NBC’s wildly popular dramedy This Is Us."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Covais to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including The New York Times, USA Today and a number of newspapers that show significant coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input, and since the nominator is now proposing to redirect...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided above illustrate that the subject has gained some notability for an acting career since his time on Idol, so a redirect would not be the right course for this article. --Jpcase (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of tallest buildings in Dubai. As long as this topic is mentioned at the proposed target, the argument against a redirect is very weak; but if consensus is established against that content, the redirect could probably be disposed of. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheffield Tower

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page, no substantive edits for many years. Seems like a non-notable building in Dubai, I don't see any coverage that would meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates. JMWt (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There only seems to be trivial mention of the subject. Lack enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or Merge or simply Keep. It is an item in List of tallest buildings in Dubai, linked on its page, so there should at least be a redirect, preserving the page history in case of more development and sources. Call it "Merge" if this has any information not there. This AFD should not have been proposed; AFD is for actual deletions and clearly that is not appropriate. wp:MERGE proposal would have been okay. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Being in a WP list doesn't make it notable

2. The relevant standard is the WP:GNG, which you need to address if you have valid reasons to vote !keep

3. You've not supplied anything to show why a merge or redirect is relevant. JMWt (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to User:JMWt, with the basics of what a redirect is: a redirect, at least makes sense, to provide information to readers looking for the topic. The list-article row directly provides information, in context (and sometimes/often it is more informative for coverage of a topic to be within a list-article, as relative matters, context gives more than what a short individual stub can provide. A redirect clarifies that Wikipedia does not have an article on the topic under any name variation. The use of redirect provides edit history and enables restoration and expansion in the future if coverage/sources warrant, with adherence to the promise of Wikipedia that editors' writing will be credited to them. These are basics of Wikipedia. If you don't understand, perhaps your asking questions at wp:TEAHOUSE would help you. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the personal attacks thanks. It is a fact, not an opinion, that in AfD debates you need to address the GNG. Just repeating that WP:ILIKEIT is not much of a contribution to the debate. JMWt (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another non-notable unbuilt building. Oppose redirecting since these never-built projects IMO shouldn't even be listed there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Howard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local councillor, fails WP:NPOL Park3r (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians. Park3r (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 05:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Strong delete none of the sources are indepth to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: SIGCOV arguably met. Again, please, do some searches before these noms.

Even if not met, still a councillor at a major Australian metropolitan city. Strongly arguable that this qualifies for WP:POLITICIAN; and failing that, still notable under GNG for the same reason. Jack4576 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL grants automatic notability for national and state/provincial level, not local government. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not invoking WP:NPOL for automatic notability.

I am invoking SIGCOV on GNG for a presumption of notability; with alternative GNG argument based on the facts unique to this particular case. Jack4576 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Town or city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media is not sufficient to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from NPOL — every councillor in every town or city always gets some local hits in the local media, so if that were how it worked then every councillor would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because no councillor would ever be subject to it at all anymore. So the bar for inclusion of local councillors is not "local media coverage exists", it's "they have an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, above and beyond what most other councillors could just as easily show, thus providing a credible reason why this person could legitimately be deemed a special case of much greater individual notability than the norm", which isn't what the sourcing on the table here is showing. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brisbane city council is the most powerful council in Australia. Comparisons to 'every town' are nonsensical.

This council is exceptional in Australian politics. There's your special case. Jack4576 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL is pretty clear in that local councillors aren't presumed notable. It is true that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, but it is still a local council, similar to most others except size. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that the article should be retained on the basis that councillors are inherently notable, or presumed notable

What you are doing by saying "but it is still a local council" is arguing that councils are inherently not-notable. This is a problem

If you acknowledge that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, it follows that if SIGCOV has been met; this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements Jack4576 (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't give up on Brisbane councillors being inherently notable do you? Now with the new line the Council is "powerful". LibStar (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the “power” of the council there are 26 wards, which dilutes the “power” of each councillor. In any case notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Park3r (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has argued for inherent notability Jack4576 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what’s the point of discussing the “power” of the council? Park3r (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete many passing mentions but no dedicated coverage. Weakly sourced BLPs (especially politicians) are defamation targets. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Bearcat. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ocel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable, only able to find WP:ROUTINE coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. The article asserts that he has worked steadily in the theatre, first as a stage manager and now as a director, but not all stage directors are notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have some renown in various theater pieces [27], [28] and [29], in the USA and Ireland. These aren't extensive coverage, but seem to be well-known. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep managed to find several sources through a simple Google search, [30][31][32][33][34][35]. Several sources on Google Books, including multiple mentions in With Our Good Will 30 Years of Shakespeare in Idaho, Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004, and A Directory of Shakespeare in Performance Since 1991 Volume 3, USA and Canada, and several sources on Google Scholar. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input on the sources presented above...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per GoldenBootWizard276 and Oaktree b.

Please perform more thorough WP:Before prior to nominations Jack4576 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several scholarly sources mention Ocel and analyze his work. His productions have also been reviewed in several publications. This article needs better sourcing, but the subject definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kunduana House

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is mostly based on Wikipedia:Original research. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find anything about the building, but perhaps the article's creator used a non-standard English spelling. The claims in the article (being a listed building, being "one of the finest country houses in Pakistan") would indicate notability if they can be verified. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my first reaction was the same as Eastmain’s, but I can’t turn up any sources for this in English or Urdu. Oddly the article describes the building as unfinished, suggesting it’s not a historic palace at all. Anyway the whole thing is so garbled there’s no real way of knowing what is going on, so we should not keep this hanging around any longer. Mccapra (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also here’s the article listing both protected and unprotected sites in Gujrat district. Kunduana House isn’t on the list. Mccapra (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably a WP:HOAX. this version - they tried to built it based on Montacute House. Why I can't find this house on maps? BookishReader (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khanqah Daep Sharif

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in literature/media about this place. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book used as a reference in the article is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a place in Dera Ismail Khan District. BookishReader (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the sources cited are reliable. Delete - The sources refer to a different place with a similar name. DreamRimmer (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmerObviously they are, but two of them are about a different place. BookishReader (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I just double-checked the references and decided to amend my vote as a result. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sources are reliable and amount to SIGCOV. I'm confused as to why this page was nominated Jack4576 (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable, but are they related to this place? Have you even opened any source? BookishReader (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are fine, meets WP:GNG. Delete per nom. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JML1148 Hello JML1148, I'm sharing my analysis with you as I know you'd change your thoughts about this. This place is in Khushab District of Punjab, Pakistan. #2 and #3 references are about a place in Dera Ismail Khan District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Two places are miles apart. #1 reference is just a mention in a government website (which has mentioned multiple places). Still lacks WP:SIGCOV. BookishReader (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, I didn't notice that! I'll change my vote now. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The cited sources talk about a different place. Insight 3 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BookishReader's source eval. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Weil, Martin (June 5, 2022). "Man slain in Northeast Washington". Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[2] "Man fatally shot on Benning Road in Northeast D.C." Washington Post. May 3, 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[3] Laris, Michael (October 22, 2018). "From Model T to driverless: Ford to launch fleet of robot cars in Washington". Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[4] Giambrone, Andrew (July 23, 2015). "At Starburst Plaza, a Community Tries to Combat Synthetic Drug Use". Washington City Paper. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[5] Di Caro, Martin (April 7, 2015). "Before Passengers Grace D.C. Streetcar, Rails Already Under Repair". Washington City Paper. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[6] Heim, Daniel (February 1, 2008). "Officials Hold Groundbreaking for H Street Trolley". Roll Call. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[7] Smith, Max (March 26, 2019). "Redesign of Maryland Ave. in Northeast aims to improve safety". WTOP-FM. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[8] Sernovitz, Daniel J. (October 5, 2021). "Hechinger Mall owners seeking replacement tenants after Modell's closes". Washington Business Journal. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[9] "The 4 Big Developments Planned Around DC's Starburst Intersection". July 5, 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[10] "Transportation Technical Report, H Street/Benning Road Corridor, Washington, DC" (PDF). May 2013. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[11] "DC Streetcar System Plan" (PDF). October 2010. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[12] "Mayor Bowser to Join the Metropolitan Police Department at the Citywide National Night Out Kickoff". July 31, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[13] "Appendix B, H St/Benning Maintenance Facilities (images)" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[14] "Action Agenda Progress Report 2010" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[15] "Maryland Ave NE Streetscape Project". Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[16] "DC Streetcar System Plan" (PDF). Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[17] "Florida Avenue Multimodal Transportation Study" (PDF). February 2015. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]